piblondin Posted January 16, 2011 Share #1 Â Posted January 16, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) How much latitude does this film have if I'm developing at 400? I know that it can be pushed with good results to 1600 and even 3200, but I want to know how much latitude I have in my exposures if I'm using it as an ISO 400 film. I've been using XP2 a lot recently and can usually get away with one, sometimes two stops of underexposure. Â Thanks! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 16, 2011 Posted January 16, 2011 Hi piblondin, Take a look here By how much can I underexpose Tri-X and develop at 400?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Xmas Posted January 16, 2011 Share #2  Posted January 16, 2011 Hi  It depends on how you meter and how contrasty the scene is.  But you should have a lot more margin with Ilford XP2 than Tri-x. They are different technology films, the shadows will dissappear with the Tri-x.  The ISO has a safety factor of about 1.25 stops.  Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_d Posted January 16, 2011 Share #3 Â Posted January 16, 2011 According to the Kodak film data sheet (F-4017) for Tri-x, you can under expose the film 1 stop and still process normally. Of course this comes with a penalty of more grain and less shadow detail. Kodak has all their film data sheets on their website. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbretteville Posted January 16, 2011 Share #4 Â Posted January 16, 2011 Lately I've been rating TX at 320 and taking about 10% off the dev times listed for 400. C Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted January 17, 2011 Share #5 Â Posted January 17, 2011 How much latitude does this film have if I'm developing at 400? I know that it can be pushed with good results to 1600 and even 3200 [...]! Â What you 'know' is just plain wrong. Â . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
milosz Posted January 17, 2011 Share #6 Â Posted January 17, 2011 Maybe not 3200, but folks have been pushing Tri-X to 1600 (with proper development) for decades. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikkor AIS Posted January 17, 2011 Share #7 Â Posted January 17, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) http://rogaltacdesign.smugmug.com/Other/Early-Work/Shift-1985-photoshop/841513238_TvPAW-XL.jpg Tri-x @ 1600 ASA Â I am not a big fan of under exposing Tri-X. When in doudt I have always gone one the side of a denser negative. If the neg is thin there is just nothing there. Over expsoer/over developing will give you more grain. But so what:p . Â Gregory Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted January 17, 2011 Share #8 Â Posted January 17, 2011 Â Tri-X pushed way over the top. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted January 17, 2011 Share #9  Posted January 17, 2011 Hi Pico  Printed on a nice warm toned silver gelatine 10x8, the female and me would like that picture, nice.  But you are correct pushing film is speculative, and your example sceane is low contrast, so you have picked an easy scenario.  The OP needs to stay with XP2 if he cannot contain the scenarios?  Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted January 17, 2011 Share #10  Posted January 17, 2011 Hi Pico Printed on a nice warm toned silver gelatine 10x8, the female and me would like that picture, nice.  But you are correct pushing film is speculative, and your example sceane is low contrast, so you have picked an easy scenario.  The OP needs to stay with XP2 if he cannot contain the scenarios?  Noel  Noel, I messed up (again!). The image was done on 2475 Recording film, not Tri-x. I had to go to the file cabinet to be sure, and then it was too late to delete the post. That little boy is 42 years-old now, so you know it was long ago. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted January 17, 2011 Share #11  Posted January 17, 2011 Hi Pico   His mum would appreciate a AgBr even more... I recall 2475 it was simpler buying a /1.4.  Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted January 17, 2011 Share #12  Posted January 17, 2011 What you 'know' is just plain wrong. .  Tri-X @3200 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!  Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!  Pete Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!  Pete ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/141839-by-how-much-can-i-underexpose-tri-x-and-develop-at-400/?do=findComment&comment=1561259'>More sharing options...
H. James Wolf Posted January 17, 2011 Share #13 Â Posted January 17, 2011 Are you talking about varied ISOs on the same roll or shooting each roll at a specific ISO? If you want to try various ISOs on the same roll, some images may disappoint. You can do TriX in Diafine and get results with everything from ISO 400 to 1600. The 1600 will be fine, the 400 will be printable but not perfect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
piblondin Posted January 17, 2011 Author Share #14 Â Posted January 17, 2011 James, I meant using different exposure values on the same roll--specifically shooting mostly at 400, developing at 400, but occasionally shooting at 800 or 1600. I'll experiment, but based on the feedback, it looks like I'll be sticking with XP2 for B&W and Portra 160/400 for color. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted January 18, 2011 Share #15  Posted January 18, 2011 Hi  I think the Fuji C41 monochrome is very similar to the XP2, the Kodak C41 monochrome has a masked (orange colored) base, which mght annoy wet printers, but is otherwise similar, in terms of contrast and latitude.  Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgray Posted January 18, 2011 Share #16 Â Posted January 18, 2011 It really depends if you are scanning or printing in the darkroom. You should be able to get away with 800 doing either. 1600 isn't going to look fabulous if scanning, but you should be able to get a useable picture with crummy shadow tones. If wet printing, it might be hard to get proper contrast in the print - there are only so many grades. At 3200, you can still make parts of the image look 'normal' in photoshop, but you really give up a lot of shadow tones. Some people like that look though. It will also handle a stop or two of overexposure pretty easily. This is most definitely easier to deal with in the darkroom as the over exposure gets higher. Â This is all with normal development. You'll get better images if you develop the negatives appropriately for the amount of underexposure. Personally, I don't find it to be that much different than the claims you see for BW400CN or XP2. I also personally don't really see the need for this kind of capability that much. If you must do it, you'd probably be better off with developing Tri-X in something like Diafine, which will give you a more balanced and useable 400-1600 due to its compensating effect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted January 18, 2011 Share #17 Â Posted January 18, 2011 The answer depends on the subject and the effect you want. Â If it's a low-range subject - flat lighting, no shadows, no bright highlights - you can underexpose by 3 stops or more from an averaging meter reading and still get a thin but printable negative. Â If it's a wide-range subject - e.g. direct sunlight at 70 degrees or more to the subject-camera axis, bright non-specular highlights and deep dark shadows - you can't cut the exposure at all without losing some detail in the shadows. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted January 18, 2011 Share #18  Posted January 18, 2011 The answer depends on the subject and the effect you want.  If it's a low-range subject - flat lighting, no shadows, no bright highlights - you can underexpose by 3 stops or more from an averaging meter reading and still get a thin but printable negative.  If it's a wide-range subject - e.g. direct sunlight at 70 degrees or more to the subject-camera axis, bright non-specular highlights and deep dark shadows - you can't cut the exposure at all without losing some detail in the shadows. Hi John  Agreed but more generally. With silver image monochrome, you need to spot meter for zone 1, you then can use 800-900 ISO (with Tri-x,) if the meter, shutter, etc. are accurate. Otherwise you are taking risks, of not having detail in shadows/zone 1. If the sceane is too contrasty for tri-x you need to use a soft working dev like D-23 or POTA.  Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.